Hopper

Hopper v. Melendez

Good Law
340 F. App'x 391
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 31, 2009No. 08-35048California533 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Vincent Daniel Hopper, also known as Antolin Andrew Marks, a detainee at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his civil rights action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the access to courts claims because Marks failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant frustrated or impeded a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Summary judgment was also proper on Marks’s claims regarding his use of the telephone system at the Northwest Detention Center because Marks did not raise a triable issue as to whether the defendant violated his constitutional…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.